The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pearl Samurai[edit]

Mount Pearl Samurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hockey team in a regional league. Speedy declined with the reasoning "WP:NHOCKEY indicates that national senior teams are notable". This isn't a national team (and WP:NHOCKEY in fact says nothing of the sort). Prod declined by article creator without comment. Hairhorn (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of the other teams are notable, either; the pages don't even have references. I've held off nominating them for deletion until this discussion is resolved. Hairhorn (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most small hockey teams do not have any thing notable. I think it would be a shame to delete any of them. Its a small bit of history. I am just learning this wiki stuff and it takes time to learn how to do every thing when you work full time and have a family tro look after. I hope you can reverse your decision, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cable1998 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The major paper in the area is the St. John's Telegram. Many articles older than a few weeks are not given access to google news but are instead stored away on the Transcontinental website for people to buy... one headline about the team was made on October 16, 2012 in the sports section (remove the space after url? and this link should work... it's been spam filtered for some reason -- http://www.google.ca/url? sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CGYQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2%2Ftranscontinental.newspaperdirect.com%2Fepaper%2Fviewer.aspx%3Fissue%3D60732012101600000000001001%26page%3D17%26article%3Dbdb953aa-7d30-448e-94ee-5cc95b11dfe2%26key%3DH9hv82IgJ8%2BcPtdGn7scAw%3D%3D%26feed%3Drss&ei=e8GyUMHxN4qxygGr2IGICg&usg=AFQjCNG3HICcmO7ihGsNQ_RBwksms0WllQ)... they do and will get press. DMighton (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find that URL got a message that it was for a black listed site, which the Telegram surely is not. I can't change my !vote based on your assertion, therefore. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your vote Shawn, it's yours... http://www.thetelegram.com/ The St. John's Telegram stores most of its articles here http://transcontinentalnewsnet.com/thetelegram/ so people will pay for back issues... making most of their articles not available on google news... just like the good old days before google started storing... some articles. My point is that there has been coverage of this extremely new team by a fairly major newspaper... google news has its limitations... pay2view papers are one them. DMighton (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find [1] and [2]. Were those what you were referring to? Legoktm (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!! I tried to use the google search link and it obviously didn't work. DMighton (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How are they notable? Can you point to a policy that mentions the Allan Cup specifically? Hairhorn (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd be interested in seeing as well how simply being eligible for a senior amateur trophy confers notability on every such amateur team in existence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Teams that compete for the Allan cup are covered widely in the media. That being said senior teams have been discussed at wp:hockey a number of times and consensus always has fallen on them being notable enough. And as DMighton mentions, notability guidelines are guidelines not policy. -DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has guidelines... not policies... and although the Herder Trophy and Allan Cup bolsters notability, the team is notable itself. DMighton (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the relevant guideline is wp:org, even WP:NHOCKEY says nothing about the Allan Cup. Hairhorn (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More